Church of Christ (and the like): evangelical or heretical?

[Greektim]

1. The primary question in the OP is structured difficultly. You either are evangelical or a heretic. Since I don't view mainline denominations or other orthodox Christian groups as heretical who aren't evangelicals, I will definitely go with my vote.

Point granted. I was thinking in broad sweeping terms.

2. Having talked with plenty of CoC folks, and also having spent two PhD seminars researching the nature and history of evangelicalism, I don't agree that their view of baptism is enough to put them out of the evangelical camp. If evangelical only means what baptists and quasi-baptist churches believe, that is an erroneous understanding of evangelical.

I certainly would not qualify or define evangelical as such. But it does seem that a common heritage shared in evangelicalism is the gospel. But I guess there is enough fluidity in that, that perhaps the CoC can be included. However, their view seems very near if not actually faith + works. That is not evangelical in my estimation and understanding. But I would defer to those like you who are more inclined to historical theology than me.

3. CoC, again depending on the individual church, aren't agreed as to the soteriological function of baptism. Almost all, it seems, agree that it isn't a sacrament (ala Catholicism, EOrthodoxy, Anglican, etc) but that it is part B, or the sealing function of baptism. Plenty of my Pentecostal friends will tell you they believe that speaking in tongues is part B. I've even heard some fringe Baptists equate inerrancy with salvation.

I would disagree, though not vigorously. It seems like a standard statement of faith in most CoC's I encounter are pretty united on their understanding of baptism and its relationship to salvation.

4. Plenty of evangelical denoms, networks, and churches believe baptism is a seal of either justification or the covenant. What do you think about, say, Max Lucado? How about the ministry of Southeast Christian Church? etc. Independent Christian Churches and CoC are often awfully similar. The point here is that if we keep culling the herd based on doctrinal differences we'll only end up with a handful of faithful churches who are worthy of "evangelical." So sue me, I believe in a big tent for evangelicalism.

I guess this is important for me because it is directly related to the gospel. I get along splendidly w/ Presby's b/c their mode and understanding of baptism is not a gospel/salvific issue. CoC is. What do we do with that?

5. I don't think the CoC's view of baptism violates orthodoxy. There I said it. I also disagree, vehemently, with their view and also disagree with many of them who believe I'm going to hell because of my view. Their view has historical roots btw. Check Everett Ferguson's Baptism in the Early Church for that. (We should note that Dr Ferguson is a prof at Abilene Christian...but he is highly regarded academically.) Their view is part a faith in Christ and part b baptism in Christ. Now we Baptists believe this too btw, we just hold that the "baptism" here is the work of the Holy Spirit instaneously at justification. They believe it is a physical act. I disagree with them. But I can't hold their view to be outside orthodoxy.

As I understand their ordo salutis, it seems difficult to square with orthodoxy. YOu make it sound like step 2 or 3 in the process of a believer whereas it seems like it is presented as part and parcel to faith and repentance (as in it is step 1 after step 1 and step 1).

6. How much different in degree is their view of baptism than my disagreement with Dr MacArthur's view of lordship salvation? Just saying, we disagree...but I respect him.

7. What is the "orthodox" position on baptism? What is the "evangelical" position on baptism? Who decided either?

This is not a matter of disrespect. This is a matter of the gospel. Thus, your questions are misplaced. I am not questioning what is orthodox baptism. I am questioning orthodox gospel and whether someone including baptism as part of that gospel is orthodox. Surely you see the difference.

 

[convicted1]

I live betwixt two of the "hard core" CoC's, and if you aren't in the CoC, and also water baptized, you're either in a false religion, or hell-bound when you die.

 

[MB]

I live betwixt two of the "hard core" CoC's, and if you aren't in the CoC, and also water baptized, you're either in a false religion, or hell-bound when you die.

There are other church of Christ besides the united CoC that do not take it to extremes.
MB

 

[Herald]

Not to be mean but while we are at it, lets give the RCC and the JWs the same credit while condeming Baptists who base their salvation on grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone.... not by works. Let's condem those Baptists who get their spiritual nurishment from the words of the Bible and with prayer instead of constantly recalling the memory of their past baptism experience.

You have a difficult time understanding figures of speech.

You also make an incredible, superhuman leap. You automatically equate my view of baptism with condemning Baptists for getting their spiritual nourishment from the Word and prayer. In addition you accuse me of "constantly recalling the memory of their past baptism experience." That is not exactly what I said. If you are going to criticize my position, at least have the common courtesy to understand what I said.

The CoC has a very high view of baptism. It is a heretical view (as I said earlier in this thread), but still a high view. The Roman Catholics have a high view of baptism also. They believe it is necessary for salvation. Again, a heretical view. What is so enticing about heresy is that is often close to the truth. So close that those who lack discernment can be deceived into believing it is the truth.

The truth is that Baptism does play a significant role in the life of a believer. It identifies the individual as belonging to Christ. It symbolizes the individuals death to sin. It symbolizes the individuals future resurrection. It is the sign of the New Covenant. Our Baptist ancestors considered baptism so important that they died, at the hands of other Christians, defending it. But you refer to it as a "past baptism experience."

When I look back on my baptism I remember Christ's forgiveness of my sins. I remember that my old man was buried with Him in baptism, and raised in newness of life. I can point back and say, "See? That is when I became part of the New Covenant community!" Yes. I know I became part of the community by faith, but it was at my baptism that I testified of that. That is a great source of encouragement to me. I know it is a source of encouragement to others. Why do you have a problem with that?

 

[convicted1]

There are other church of Christ besides the united CoC that do not take it to extremes.
MB

Well, I don't know what "flavor" of CoC they are, but the two closest to me, then there are at least two more within 30 minutes of me, who believe the exact thing. They are "CoC or bust". I even have heard them preaching on the radio(not the ones around me, but other CoC's, like in Ohio), and they will go so far as to say, "As Apostle Paul wrote to the Church of Christ at Corinth, or Rome, Ephesus", etc. They actually believe they started way back then, and are ignorant of the fact that they once were called "Campbellites". :tonofbricks:

 

[convicted1]

You have a difficult time understanding figures of speech.

You also make an incredible, superhuman leap. You automatically equate my view of baptism with condemning Baptists for getting their spiritual nourishment from the Word and prayer. In addition you accuse me of "constantly recalling the memory of their past baptism experience." That is not exactly what I said. If you are going to criticize my position, at least have the common courtesy to understand what I said.

The CoC has a very high view of baptism. It is a heretical view (as I said earlier in this thread), but still a high view. The Roman Catholics have a high view of baptism also. They believe it is necessary for salvation. Again, a heretical view. What is so enticing about heresy is that is often close to the truth. So close that those who lack discernment can be deceived into believing it is the truth.

The truth is that Baptism does play a significant role in the life of a believer. It identifies the individual as belonging to Christ. It symbolizes the individuals death to sin. It symbolizes the individuals future resurrection. It is the sign of the New Covenant. Our Baptist ancestors considered baptism so important that they died, at the hands of other Christians, defending it. But you refer to it as a "past baptism experience."

When I look back on my baptism I remember Christ's forgiveness of my sins. I remember that my old man was buried with Him in baptism, and raised in newness of life. I can point back and say, "See? That is when I became part of the New Covenant community!" Yes. I know I became part of the community by faith, but it was at my baptism that I testified of that. That is a great source of encouragement to me. I know it is a source of encouragement to others. Why do you have a problem with that?

To be quite honest; I was saved May 24th, 2007, and wasn't baptized until Jume 10th, 2007. Eventhough if I had died before being baptized, I was blood bought and heaven bound, I wasn't completely satisified until they laid me in my "liquid grave", and brought me forth out of it. It is a symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and that we are now in accord with Him, seeing that it was He who saved us, and not the water.

 

[preachinjesus]

I wonder, have you read Iain H. Murray's EVANGELICALISM DIVIDED? If so, what are your thoughts on it?

I read it some time ago, as I recall I appreciated his view but disagreed primarily over his view of separation. While his research is laudable his result isn't helpful. Murray seems to miss the influence of American (or even British) Fundamentalism in crafting an evangelical ethos and is too confined in his solutions. Anyhoo...I'm more appreciative of guys like Marsden and Hunter in this kind of discussion. (yes, I just showed my hand a bit.)

As I am in the greater Louisville Area, I attended a Southeast Christian Church service a few years ago, and it just so happened that the Pastor's (Dave Stone) message that week was, "What do we believe about Baptism."... Now, when it comes to people's eternal souls, I cannot have much confidence in Southeast Christian's ministry when their answer is, "Here's some stuff...we aren't sure which of these really saves you, but its best not to leave any of them out."

Southeast is really intriguing as they keep a baptistry filled and ready to go because of their view of baptism. And yet they are a massive church.

Dave's statement is strange, it lacks qualification so I'd have to hear the entire sermon to understand the context.

However, it does show a bit of what I was speaking about. CoC (Southeast is, I believe, independent Christian or a Christian Church...these are different from CoC) usually believe that faith is part A of salvation and baptism part B. I disagree with them. I give them a scenario, a woman attends a CoC meeting and prays to receive Christ in faith. As she steps out of her pew (all they ever have is pews) an airplane crashes through the ceiling and kills her and everyone sitting in the back (backrow Christians them all.) Was she saved? Almost all CoC folks would say no. She hadn't sealed her salvation by being baptized.

Listen, I don't agree with them. But I can't not call them evangelical. I certainly can't call them heretics.

They don't want much to do with me (even my wife's relatives who are CoC are polite but worry about my salvation...even though I've run circles around them theologically when we discuss these things.) However, I do see a historical basis for their view in the earliest churches and can understand how they come to it. I'm not defending their brand of church, I'm just saying I can't call them heretics.

Heresy is too an important a word to toss around liberally like folks do on this board.

Good point. Only the most anti-Lord-ship Salvation people would go so far as to say John Mac. is not saved.

Well again, I think extremes are extremely vexing.

You didn't address why you think Baptists have some deep-seated (non-theological) animosity toward CoC's.

Let me answer GT and I'll post up what I know. Its all kinds of Texas screwy.

 

[preachinjesus]

. I certainly would not qualify or define evangelical as such. But it does seem that a common heritage shared in evangelicalism is the gospel. But I guess there is enough fluidity in that, that perhaps the CoC can be included. However, their view seems very near if not actually faith + works. That is not evangelical in my estimation and understanding. But I would defer to those like you who are more inclined to historical theology than me.

Maybe the bigger issue is whether CoC want to be considered evangelical.

Their penchant desire for drastic separation (even going to different liquor stores to avoid saying hello to each other) might well be a sign that they should be excluded.

I would disagree, though not vigorously. It seems like a standard statement of faith in most CoC's I encounter are pretty united on their understanding of baptism and its relationship to salvation.

Yeah, I just think it is part A and part B of salvation. They see them as intrinsically linked.

Baptists believe this too (usually) but it is nuanced differently. Holy Spirit vs water baptism. (Which I think is correct.)

I guess this is important for me because it is directly related to the gospel. I get along splendidly w/ Presby's b/c their mode and understanding of baptism is not a gospel/salvific issue. CoC is. What do we do with that?

Ultimately my soteriology begins with faith in Jesus as the justifying act no matter what practices or beliefs follow. Jesus calls us first to faith and then obedience. Jesus doesn't call us to right knowledge then faith.

As I understand their ordo salutis, it seems difficult to square with orthodoxy. YOu make it sound like step 2 or 3 in the process of a believer whereas it seems like it is presented as part and parcel to faith and repentance (as in it is step 1 after step 1 and step 1).

Well your first mistake is using Latin to understand a CoC ...they don't do Latin.

Soteriology is a tough issue because it is so diverse once you get past faith in Jesus.

Episcopal, presbyterian, methodist, baptist, pentecostal, etc etc etc all have different views of the workings of salvation once you get beyond faith in Christ. I just think generosity should be the watchword here.

Do we really want a synergist and a monergist running around yelling "heretic!" at each other? Even when they are basically within the same camp on tons of other stuff?

Anyhoo...the way they have explained the role of baptism is salvation in that it is part B of a two part process. Faith is part A, you have faith in Jesus Christ, and part B is you are baptized for the washing away of your sins. If you haven't had your sins washed you aren't saved. Is this my view? Of course not. It is an erroneous view of the NT position imho. Can I call them heretical? Nope.

This is not a matter of disrespect. This is a matter of the gospel. Thus, your questions are misplaced. I am not questioning what is orthodox baptism. I am questioning orthodox gospel and whether someone including baptism as part of that gospel is orthodox. Surely you see the difference.

My questions were meant to evoke reflection as to the nature of evangelicalism (which is as slip-shod as they come in terms of affiliation and identity) and the nature of diversity among those who include themselves in the evangelical camp.

I think it's a good discussion. My life experience has led me to desire a more generous Christianity in terms of how we associate with each other. After years of watching people bicker, scream, and holler about who is and isn't _________ (insert pointless label) I got tired of it and found that often we do this because we are simply speaking past each other. CoC are quirky folks and I've been told to my face by more than a few that I'll spend all my days in eternal damnation for my view of baptism. I disagree with them on this and other things. However, I can still be generous.

 

[12strings]

Let me answer GT and I'll post up what I know. Its all kinds of Texas screwy.

Don't spend to much time or energy on it...regardless the historical rivalries which I'm sure are true, and which I'm sure still have an effect...I'm simply saying that in my circles, the Baptists I interact with have no historical grudge, only a theological disagreement that would prevent us from joining with CoC for any kind of evangelistic outreach or biblical Education endeavor.

 

[preachinjesus]

Okay, so Why do Baptists and Church of Christ folks not get along...historically?

Well back in the late 1800s (and through the early part of the 1900s) mostly in the southwest areas (Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arkansas, and Louisiana) there were lots of Baptist churches all over. You had FBC ________ that was one of the more prominent churches in the area. Well, the CoC folks started growing and began sending out ministers (they don't call them pastors) to various towns to spread their theology.

Generally what would happen is a guy and his family would show up and start a Bible study in his home in a quiet way. Now these are usually isolated, rural communities where news travels about half the speed of smell. Anyhoo, they would start a Bible study and it would grow to be able 40 - 50 people. Then they would go to the local Baptist church and join the church over several Sundays. Everybody would be thrilled because the church was growing.

Now the local Baptist church is important here because it had three things they knew would work to their advantage: 1) a physical building, 2) limited communication with other churches, 3) autonomy.

Well after about two or three months this little group of new folks to the local Baptist church would have grown in size because, man, there was one or two fellas that were pretty good Sunday School teachers and they taught from the Bible. Well they also taught the baptism thing too. So as soon as the group had a 50% plus 1 majority (these are small churches mind you) they would call a special business meeting, fire the pastor, change the name of the church, and vote in a new minister.

Anybody who disagreed with them, their doctrine, or the way they handled things would be disfellowshipped and run out of the new Church of Christ.

And this happened across the southwest region for about three or four decades. Made Baptist folk madder than hornets and it lasts through until today, but most people don't know why they're mad at CoC people. This is why, when you drive around rural towns in these states, and you find an old Church of Christ building it looks a whole lot like an old Baptist building (red brick, white columns, pews in the sanctuary.)

So there, you've wasted a perfectly good five minutes reading this. I've sources for all this data if you need it. But I think we can all agree its a pretty low-down and dirty way to do church...which still happens today in some ways.

 

[percho]

I voted not sure for I do not think neither of the other apply I just think they are deceived.

For I believe the water baptism of Jesus was prophetic of his true baptism by which we could be given the Holy Spirit unto belief.

I think the best example we have for water baptism in the NT is the Ethiopian eunuch.

What did he understand and why did he want to be baptized in water?

Was it that he wanted to associate himself with this one who had died for him and had his days prolonged?

Did he understand that through the prolonged days, of the one who had died for sin, that he had a good conscience toward God and that his being baptized in water would show that?

 

[MB]

Okay, so Why do Baptists and Church of Christ folks not get along...historically?

Well back in the late 1800s (and through the early part of the 1900s) mostly in the southwest areas (Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arkansas, and Louisiana) there were lots of Baptist churches all over. You had FBC ________ that was one of the more prominent churches in the area. Well, the CoC folks started growing and began sending out ministers (they don't call them pastors) to various towns to spread their theology.

Generally what would happen is a guy and his family would show up and start a Bible study in his home in a quiet way. Now these are usually isolated, rural communities where news travels about half the speed of smell. Anyhoo, they would start a Bible study and it would grow to be able 40 - 50 people. Then they would go to the local Baptist church and join the church over several Sundays. Everybody would be thrilled because the church was growing.

Now the local Baptist church is important here because it had three things they knew would work to their advantage: 1) a physical building, 2) limited communication with other churches, 3) autonomy.

Well after about two or three months this little group of new folks to the local Baptist church would have grown in size because, man, there was one or two fellas that were pretty good Sunday School teachers and they taught from the Bible. Well they also taught the baptism thing too. So as soon as the group had a 50% plus 1 majority (these are small churches mind you) they would call a special business meeting, fire the pastor, change the name of the church, and vote in a new minister.

Anybody who disagreed with them, their doctrine, or the way they handled things would be disfellowshipped and run out of the new Church of Christ.

And this happened across the southwest region for about three or four decades. Made Baptist folk madder than hornets and it lasts through until today, but most people don't know why they're mad at CoC people. This is why, when you drive around rural towns in these states, and you find an old Church of Christ building it looks a whole lot like an old Baptist building (red brick, white columns, pews in the sanctuary.)

So there, you've wasted a perfectly good five minutes reading this. I've sources for all this data if you need it. But I think we can all agree its a pretty low-down and dirty way to do church...which still happens today in some ways.

You sound as if this has happened to your church.
MB

 

[preachinjesus]

You sound as if this has happened to your church.
MB

Nope, just relating the history.

 

[quantumfaith]

i read it some time ago, as i recall i appreciated his view but disagreed primarily over his view of separation. While his research is laudable his result isn't helpful. Murray seems to miss the influence of american (or even british) fundamentalism in crafting an evangelical ethos and is too confined in his solutions. Anyhoo...i'm more appreciative of guys like marsden and hunter in this kind of discussion. (yes, i just showed my hand a bit.)



southeast is really intriguing as they keep a baptistry filled and ready to go because of their view of baptism. And yet they are a massive church.

Dave's statement is strange, it lacks qualification so i'd have to hear the entire sermon to understand the context.

However, it does show a bit of what i was speaking about. Coc (southeast is, i believe, independent christian or a christian church...these are different from coc) usually believe that faith is part a of salvation and baptism part b. I disagree with them. I give them a scenario, a woman attends a coc meeting and prays to receive christ in faith. As she steps out of her pew (all they ever have is pews) an airplane crashes through the ceiling and kills her and everyone sitting in the back (backrow christians them all.) was she saved? Almost all coc folks would say no. She hadn't sealed her salvation by being baptized.

Listen, i don't agree with them. But i can't not call them evangelical. I certainly can't call them heretics.

They don't want much to do with me (even my wife's relatives who are coc are polite but worry about my salvation...even though i've run circles around them theologically when we discuss these things.) however, i do see a historical basis for their view in the earliest churches and can understand how they come to it. I'm not defending their brand of church, i'm just saying i can't call them heretics.

heresy is too an important a word to toss around liberally like folks do on this board.



well again, i think extremes are extremely vexing.




let me answer gt and i'll post up what i know. Its all kinds of texas screwy.

thank you!!!!!!!!

 

[Herald]

To be quite honest; I was saved May 24th, 2007, and wasn't baptized until Jume 10th, 2007. Eventhough if I had died before being baptized, I was blood bought and heaven bound, I wasn't completely satisified until they laid me in my "liquid grave", and brought me forth out of it. It is a symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and that we are now in accord with Him, seeing that it was He who saved us, and not the water.

That is a wonderful testimony.

 

[thomas15]

You have a difficult time understanding figures of speech.

Perhaps you have a point. However, taking everthing you have to say about baptism and trying to distill your theology is not an easy task.

For example:

The truth is that Baptism does play a significant role in the life of a believer. It identifies the individual as belonging to Christ. It symbolizes the individuals death to sin. It symbolizes the individuals future resurrection. It is the sign of the New Covenant. Our Baptist ancestors considered baptism so important that they died, at the hands of other Christians, defending it. But you refer to it as a "past baptism experience."

Baptism is important. It is a means of grace whereby the recipient is strengthened in their faith.

I agree it has salvific value to the extent it confirms what the Spirit has done at regeneration. Do not agree with me though because that is a thoroughly Reformed view.

..... I believe baptism is salvific in nature, but not a sine qua non of salvation. What I mean by that is that baptism is a sign of the new covenant applied only to those who have professed faith in Christ. .....

So if you feel that I'm just plain old mean or English language challanged kindly accept my deepest appology.

When I look back on my baptism I remember Christ's forgiveness of my sins. I remember that my old man was buried with Him in baptism, and raised in newness of life. I can point back and say, "See? That is when I became part of the New Covenant community!" Yes. I know I became part of the community by faith, but it was at my baptism that I testified of that. That is a great source of encouragement to me. I know it is a source of encouragement to others. Why do you have a problem with that?

Question: How often (as in one, twice or more times per day) do you look back at your Baptism?

 

[kyredneck]

Baptism is important. It is a means of grace whereby the recipient is strengthened in their faith.....

It's an act of profession:

Unto what then were ye Baptized?

"II. BAPTIZED UNTO MOSES (1 Corinthians 10:12)
This bit of history of the Hebrews and of the Exodus gives us a clue as to the meaning of what it means to be baptized "unto" someone or some thing. The Hebrews had been living and working "unto" their Egyptian taskmasters. They labored at making bricks with a view to pleasing these masters and thus doing the bidding of Pharaoh. The Red Sea put a difference in their view of the One to be heeded. It had separated, or marked the death of, themselves to Egypt, and the Egyptians to them. Now they had a new leader, Moses. Their being baptized "unto Moses," then meant that no longer were they to heed the voices of the masters in Egypt, but the voice of a new Master (God) whose spokesman was Moses.

III. BAPTIZED INTO JESUS CHRIST (Romans 6:3)
We are taught that we are baptized into (same word: "unto") Jesus Christ. It is not a matter of location or place, so that baptism puts us literally into Christ. This is no more true than that "baptized unto Moses" put the Hebrews into Moses. It means that baptism (like the Red Sea crossing) drew a line between former masters and the the present leader or master. Baptism declares that we have died to the world. Being dead to it we cannot heed the voice of its god (Satan) or its leaders (taskmasters). We have a new Master (Christ), and are baptized "unto" Him. With a view to heeding Him and no other, we declare (show) our death to the world and our resurrection (new life) unto God. He is our new Master, and we heed the voice of Him Who is our Head, Christ."

 

[Herald]

Perhaps you have a point. However, taking everthing you have to say about baptism and trying to distill your theology is not an easy task.

For example:










So if you feel that I'm just plain old mean or English language challanged kindly accept my deepest appology.





Question: How often (as in one, twice or more times per day) do you look back at your Baptism?

Your apology is not needed, but I appreciate the offer.

I am reminded of the signicance of my baptism often. Attempting to pigeon-hole me as to how many times per day I look back at my baptism is not a serious question. The thing that my baptism signifies is both a present and future reality for the reasons I gave in my last post which you have quoted.

My question still stands. Why does this bother you?

 

[Herald]

It's an act of profession:

Unto what then were ye Baptized?

"II. BAPTIZED UNTO MOSES (1 Corinthians 10:12)
This bit of history of the Hebrews and of the Exodus gives us a clue as to the meaning of what it means to be baptized "unto" someone or some thing. The Hebrews had been living and working "unto" their Egyptian taskmasters. They labored at making bricks with a view to pleasing these masters and thus doing the bidding of Pharaoh. The Red Sea put a difference in their view of the One to be heeded. It had separated, or marked the death of, themselves to Egypt, and the Egyptians to them. Now they had a new leader, Moses. Their being baptized "unto Moses," then meant that no longer were they to heed the voices of the masters in Egypt, but the voice of a new Master (God) whose spokesman was Moses.

III. BAPTIZED INTO JESUS CHRIST (Romans 6:3)
We are taught that we are baptized into (same word: "unto") Jesus Christ. It is not a matter of location or place, so that baptism puts us literally into Christ. This is no more true than that "baptized unto Moses" put the Hebrews into Moses. It means that baptism (like the Red Sea crossing) drew a line between former masters and the the present leader or master. Baptism declares that we have died to the world. Being dead to it we cannot heed the voice of its god (Satan) or its leaders (taskmasters). We have a new Master (Christ), and are baptized "unto" Him. With a view to heeding Him and no other, we declare (show) our death to the world and our resurrection (new life) unto God. He is our new Master, and we heed the voice of Him Who is our Head, Christ."

It is that too.

 

[DHK]

We have had a few from the CoC join the board and post in the Other Religions Forum, where I spend a great deal of my time.

When I was saved, it was through an interdenominational group that worked on the campuses of universities. They never stressed the importance of local churches or baptism. After salvation, and graduation I worked in a rural area where there was no opportunity to go to a local church of any kind. I wasn't baptized until two years after I was saved.

I put the question this CoC member: "If I had died within that two year period, would I have gone to heaven?" IOW, do you consider me saved?
He answered that he didn't consider me saved then, nor does he now.

They believe that baptism is an integral part of their salvation. Without baptism one cannot be saved. Furthermore, I wasn't saved because I wasn't baptized by a CoC pastor. The baptizer has to be the right person. Thus in their eyes, because I haven't been baptized by their cult I am still not saved.

Theirs is a religion of works, which cannot save. If one gets saved it is in spite of the doctrine taught, not because of it. Putting one's trust in baptism cannot save. Baptismal regeneration in the CoC is just as much heresy as it is in the RCC.